I move amendment No. 93: In page 18, to delete lines 19 to 23. This comes back to the point about the greatest possible ambition and progression. I do not believe we have room to carry carbon emissions forward. I propose a deletion of this section but I may come in with an alternative to this section on Report Stage rather than a straightforward deletion. In that context, I will withdraw this amendment and reserve the right to introduce a new version of that section on Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 95: In page 18, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following: “(7A) The Advisory Council may issue a formal request to the Minister, asking him or her to exercise his or her powers to revise a carbon budget under this section, where the Council believe that a greater reduction in greenhouse gases has become necessary due to either of the factors specified in subsection (2).”. This amendment concerns the advisory council. The concern is that the advisory council cannot trigger a revision of …

Can the Acting Chairperson clarify which amendments are in this grouping?

I am not sure if this is in my grouping but I want to point to the question in the section with regard to who is on the advisory council. The part I am concerned about is on the subcommittees of the advisory council. The subcommittees do not have to meet the same criteria in that members are not necessarily members of the advisory council. The committee can maintain other members. There may be only one member of the advisory council on a subcommittee. Functions, including the setting of carbon budgets, can be desig…

Okay, it is the composition and the functions.

We all know that we need a national maternity hospital. With respect to the Minister of State, with whom I have discussed this matter before, that is not the question. I am quite concerned by references to misinformation. What we are hearing again and again are simple assurances and reminders that we need a hospital but, in fact, the information related to this matter has been very concrete and real. It is written down in negotiating texts, in the Constitution and in documents that have come from the Sisters of Cha…

As a colleague mentioned, we are discussing agriculture at the climate committee. We are hearing the many good ideas and strong commitments from across that sector and especially from young farmers. We heard from Macra na Feirme and others. They are looking to do things differently and want a different policy context around them which supports and rewards them for approaching their practices differently, such as the move towards organic and away from fertiliser, because Ireland cannot forever have a derogation from…

My amendments are included in that grouping and I will speak to them. As I begin, I wish to note that it would be useful, between now and Report Stage, if I could be provided with more clarity because I did not get the clarity that I asked for on emission removals. It was not clear to me whether we are going for the EU model, whereby there are two separate targets, or the Scottish model, whereby there is a combined target. That is a key principle and a key question in the budget that has not been resolved. I would …

It is in this grouping.

This was based on what we debated in the committee, after many hours. It talked about the framework convention supporting people who are most affected by climate change but who have done the least to cause it. It was about the human rights and well-being of local communities, indigenous people and the most vulnerable. It was about being informed by science. These are the same principles, by the way, that were put forward by a number of international NGOs to the Minister asking that he reflect the same kinds of prin…

It is good we are removing a damaging section of text that worked at odds with the UNFCCC goals and represented a potentially dangerous dilution of those goals. I am glad to be losing what was, potentially, regressive language in the Bill. However, because it is important we include the output of the work of our many hundreds of hours in the climate committee, I will be proposing and pressing the definition the major environmental NGOs have proposed. It is supported by all the Opposition groups that have spoken. Th…

I move amendment No. 4: In page 6, to delete lines 34 and 35, and in page 7, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following: "'climate justice' means the requirement that decisions and actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the effects of climate change must— (a) support the people who are most affected by climate change but who have done the least to cause it and are the least equipped to adapt to its effects, (b) reflect the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change comm…

I move amendment No. 5: In page 6, to delete lines 34 and 35, and in page 7, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following: “ ‘climate justice’ means the principle that global climate action should be undertaken, as agreed in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, ‘on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’;” I withdraw the amendment with the hope that we can move it forward on Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 6, to delete lines 34 and 35, and in page 7, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following: “ ‘climate justice’ reflects the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change commitment to common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and— (a) supports those who are most affected by climate change but who have done the least cause it, (b) supports the human rights and wellbeing of local communities, indigenous peoples and the most vulnerable, (c) is…

I move amendment No. 7: In page 6, to delete lines 34 and 35, and in page 7, to delete lines 1 to 3.

I move amendment No. 8: In page 7, line 1, to delete “, in so far as it is practicable to do so,”. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 represent my proposed changes to the Government definition of "climate justice". That definition has now been removed. I want to be clear that in supporting the removal of the language in that definition, I have not necessarily agreed with the principle that we should not try to have a good definition of "climate justice". That is why I respect and understand others who were not able to support…

Let us put it in the law, make it hard and clear. This is our strong moment, as we put it in law and on paper. Let us do it in as strong a way as we can rather than return to the world of persuasion and excuses, which have overshadowed our climate action for many years. Let us not give more ammunition to obfuscation, persuasion and the excuses narrative we have all become too familiar with.

Will the Minister give two or three examples of what might be a reasonable defence of something not being practicable? I want to see how this will play out.

The Minister is describing progressive realisation, which is a different thing. That means a Minister cannot do it instantly and does only what he or she can what do at the time. That is different from "in so far as is practicable" and "consistent with". Would the Minister agree that Ministers may not be able to do everything immediately but they should not do things that take us backward or that are inconsistent with our climate plans or climate budgets? Does he see the issue with "in so far as is practicable" bei…

I think we will disagree on that. It is not strong. It allows for actions that are inconsistent. If the Minister wanted to use the language of progressive realisation, he could have used that language, such as "Each Minister shall make all best reasonable efforts to be consistent with", for example. That would be a possible phrasing and I will reserve the right to introduce that phrasing on the next Stage. It could be a matter on which a Minister would be required to make all reasonable efforts to be consistent wit…